"Brit-Am Now"-840
1. President Bush and the Messiah son of Joseph?
2. Steve Coneglan: Manasseh is America
3. Steve Collins: An Historical View of Ephraim and Manasseh
4. Ephraim or Manasseh? Another source of Value
5. Yaacov Fogelman and Rabbi Avichail

1. President Bush and the Messiah son of Joseph?
From: Catherine <>
Subject: Ephraim

Dankenbring talks of possibly George Bush being the anointed one of "ben Joseph" that would rise up and unite the tribes of Judah and Jospeh.  It is interesting to note on that Rabbi Tadzok also believes that a "ben Joseph" will arise just before the ben David messiah.    Tadzok also states this ben Joseph will be of Israel decent (from today's geographic Israel) but Dankenbring's suggestion that Bush could be that ben Joseph is really interesting. Tadzok said the ben Joseph would not be seen outwardly as an Israelite just as Joseph did not in Egypt. ...Blessings

2. Steve Coneglan: Manasseh is America
From: Steve Coneglan <>

Dear Yair,

Like a recent correspondent, I also had reasons to question the association of Ephraim to Great Britain, and Manasseh to America. It is a healthy discussion to maintain, although I am convinced the status quo must stand.

Having reread your answers to William Dankenbring's contention for America being Ephraim, I come out on the same side as you. All of Dankenbring's points can be effectively countered. The same cannot be said of the points you make concerning Ephraim being Great Britain.

For me, one prophecy above all others seems to settle the matter. This concerns the words spoken by the man himself, Israel, when pronouncing the futures of Ephraim and Manasseh. These words find expression in one verse, Genesis 48:19. In referring to Manasseh, Israel says that he shall become a great people (Hebrew: am gadol). But of Ephraim, Israel says that he shall become a multitude of nations (Hebrew: malo haGoyim). Analysis of these words chosen by Israel tells the whole story.

Israel used the word 'am' to refer to the single nation that Manasseh would become. According to the great scholar Gesenius, this word 'am' has two very interesting aspects. The first aspect is that 'am' usually refers to the people of God, and stands in opposition to 'goyim'. This is a very important point, and must not be overlooked, as it is the key to understanding this verse. The second aspect of the word 'am' that Gesenius relates is that it refers particularly to the citizens, the common people, in opposition to princes, leaders, and the king (Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, S. P. Tregelles trans., Samuel Bagster and Sons, London, n.y., p. DCXXXV).

These two aspects of the word 'am', chosen by Israel in reference to the single nation that Manasseh was to become, tell us that Manasseh would be known as a people belonging to God, and that the rights of the common man would take centre-stage. To this end, we read in the American Pledge of Allegiance these words describing America as, "One Nation under God". And we read these words in the American Creed, describing America as, "a Government of the People, by the People, for the People". Therefore the word 'am' describes a republican people belonging to God, which is exactly what Americans define themselves as being!

By way of contrast, Israel uses the word 'goyim' when referring to Ephraim, and does not use the word 'am'. While 'am' is generally used to identify a people as belonging to God, 'goyim' usually refers to non-Israelite peoples. Israel says that Ephraim is to become a 'malo haGoyim', a multitude or fullness of 'goyim'. These words are perfectly fulfilled today in the Commonwealth of Nations. The common element that all these Commonwealth nations share is their recognition of the British sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, as Head of the Commonwealth. This point cannot be overstated.

The Commonwealth consists of about one quarter of the world's population, the great majority of whom are not of Israelite stock, and therefore merit the term Israel chose, 'goyim'. However, a number of Israelite tribes do fall under this umbrella Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth is a unique organisation, maintaining British influence in the four corners of the earth. It is through the Commonwealth that the seed of Ephraim fulfills the promise given to Ephraim by the mouth of Israel. It is without doubt the Commonwealth that Israel is referring to.

In light of America recognising herself as God's people, and Machir reputedly being the origin of the name America, we may combine this as the people of Machir - 'am Machir' - to get America. And Machir is, of course, Manasseh's firstborn son.

There is much more that could be added here, but I wish to leave it for now. Suffice that the 'am' versus 'goyim' dichotomy found in Genesis 48:19, as voiced by Israel, is the key pointer to identity. This verse is referring to the identity of the peoples, first and foremost. Bringing in extraneous prophecies to the debate is all well and good, but they need to be subsumed under the context of this verse. For it is only at Genesis 48:19 that the man himself, Israel, makes the distinction between who the people of Manasseh are to become, and who the people of Ephraim are to become.

I hope this helps to settle the matter, and wish blessing upon your continued work, Yair.

Stepehen Coneglan

3. Steve Collins: An Historical View of Ephraim and Manasseh
From: Steve Collins <>
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-839

Shalom Yair,

In considering which modern nation is Ephraim and which is Manasseh, I think the answer becomes clearer when one adopts an historical view in how the birthright blessing was conferred on Joseph's sons. Because human lifespans are so short, people of all generations tend to interpret every promise and prophecy in the perspective of their own lifetime. Since God's promises (and the blessings on Ephraim and Manasseh) were meant to apply to the tribes' descendants throughout all human history, we need to take a long, historical approach to how this prophecy should be understood.

In Genesis 48:19-20, God blessed Ephraim first and Manasseh second. Manasseh was to be a "people" that would be "great," but Ephraim was to be "greater" and become a "multitude of nations." Ephraim's blessing was also "before" Manasseh's.

Many have seen that the British people founded a multitude of British nations (England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, to an extent, South Africa). The USA was always only one nation. This fact very much indicates that the British are Ephraim and the Americans are Manasseh. Let's look even closer at this promise and what unfolded in world events.

Ephraim was to become a "multitude of nations," but there are two ways to look at this promise. The first one is the option cited above: founding a grouping of distinctly British nations. The second is considering how power and influence that Ephraim would have over non-British nations.  It was once noted that "the sun never set on the British Empire" because so many nations were governed by the British. The British Empire governed more peoples and more nations than any nation in world history. The glorified Roman Empire was tiny compared to the British Empire! The British Empire was the most far-reaching empire ruled by a single nation (or monarch) in history. America, on the other hand, extended its direct rule only to a few other nations (Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American war, the Panama Canal zone, etc.). America's portion in founding other nations or ruling directly over other nations has been far smaller than the British portion. Most people forget how massive the "British Commonwealth of Nations" was and is. Conversely, there is no "American Commonwealth of Nations." The Encyclopedia Americana (1988 Ed. Vol. 7, p. 401) notes that all Commonwealth Nations "acknowledge the British Monarch as the Head of the Commonwealth, although some of them do not give allegiance to the British crown."  The Americana also states that the Commonwealth (in 1988)included "roughly 1/5th of the land surface of the earth" and "approximately 1/4th of the human race." The term "British" has been dropped from the Commonwealth out of national sensitivities, but the British crown and British heritage is still the common bond. How many nations are in the "American Commonwealth of Nations?"

Historically, the Americana also states: "The designation 'British Empire' was generally used from the 1600s to the early 1900s but gradually yielded to the less imperialistic-sounding 'British Commonwealth of Nations' after World War I." This also notes that the British period of dominance in world affairs spread out over four centuries (the 1600s, the 1700s, the 1800s and the 1900s). America's period of dominance has lasted mere decades (from post World War II to the present). The British period of dominance was about eight times as long as America's has been and the British period of world dominance came first (remember Ephraim's blessing was to be first). Since Britain's period of world dominance not only lasted far longer than America's but it also came first, the British fit the promised role of Ephraim in world history. America fits the blessing of Manasseh. If we only look at our lifetime, the USA is clearly greater than Great Britain, but when one considers a span of centuries (as God does in dealing with the tribes over many, many generations), the British portion was the greater portion.

Ancient Ephraim also hosted the monarch in ancient Israel. The capital of the ten tribes from King Omri's time onward was Samaria, in "Mount Ephraim" (see I Kings 16:24, 29). The capital city of the ten-tribed kingdom of Israel (where the monarchy ruled) was located in the territory of Ephraim, not the territory of Manasseh. We should, therefore, also expect that the monarchy should also be located in the land of the tribe of Ephraim in the latter days. As has always been the case, the modern monarchy is located in the British nation, not the American nation.

In light of the above, the translation cited by Chad (that Ephraim will "become greater" and "his offspring['s fame] will fill the nations" fits the viewpoint that Ephraim is the British people.

Keep in mind, this is not a subject to spend a great deal of time arguing about, because Genesis 49's prophecy about Ephraim and Manasseh in the latter days shows that their fates will be so intertwined that they will have a common fate (Gen. 49:22 simply refers to them both as "Joseph" and makes no differentiation between the fates of Ephraim and Manasseh in the latter days).

Best wishes to All,

Steven Collins

4. Ephraim or Manasseh? Another source of Value
In addition to the sources listed in
 "Brit-Am Now"-839
#2. Is the USA Really Manasseh? Or is it Ephraim?
the following article of ours consists basically of one paragraph
that sums up much of our reasoning up quite nicely.

The Ephraim or Manasseh Controversy

5. Yaacov Fogelman and Rabbi Avichail
Yaacov Fogelman sends out weekly commentary on the Torah Portion.
top-yaakov <top@ACTCOM.CO.IL>
The commentaries consist of intellectual discussions on various issues
that more or less sometimes have some connection
to one of the themes in the weekly portion.
The commentaries are of varying quality but usually contain
information worth knowing.
Yaacov is a big lumbering man with a good heart who has helped
a lot of people. He also helped us in the past which is why until now we have
refrained from speaking of him.
Yaacov was successful in real estate in the USA
and then came to Israel where he could do his own thing.
He runs or used to run an outreach and information service in the Jewish
Quarter of the Old City. Many Jews and Gentiles have been assisted by
Yaacov has at least one doctorate from Yeshiva University.
Degrees and qualifications are very important in the world of Yaacov.
Yaacov is a liberal but basically Orthodox moderate Zionist type
who likes controversy and uttering controversial  notions.
Yaacov sometimes voices offensive views.
Leading Rabbis in the past have come out in unison against his commentaries.

Yaacov once turned up at a Brit-Am meeting (held in the Israeli Center
in Jerusalem) and announced that all the Ashkenazi Jews are descended
from European Gentiles who raped Jewish women.
In his commentaries he has written similar ideas about the Sephardic Jews being descended
from Arabs.
He later claimed that his source (concerning the Ashkenazis at least) was a "professor"
at Tel Aviv University.
He may have been referring to Paul Wexler whom he has also quoted from.

These type of ideas are not worth much.
They do not accord with modern Genetic studies (nor with old ones)
nor with historical sources. Nor are they logically convincing.
They do in fact seem to have an ideological/political bias.
In the case of Wexler and elements in Tel Aviv University it seems to be felt that by weakening
the Jewish self-image it will be easier to come to an accommodation with the Arabs.

Yaacov also frequently writes in favor of Rabbi Avichail and the idea
that the Lost Ten Tribes are in Burma, Afghanistan, and similar regions.

Rabbi Avichail also receives help from an organization called "Kulanu"
 which is run by "Reform Jews" with some liberal Christian support.
They also may have an agenda.
Rabbi Avichail has been more or less superseded by his assistant
Michael Freund
All of these groups and individuals receive strong financial support from
"Ephraimites" apart perhaps from Yaacov Fogelman who may be
independently established.

This is money, prestige, influence, which we do not have and it is
all directed to spreading a Lost Tribes message
that is mistaken.
Anyway this is one aspect of the side working "Contrary" to Brit-Am
which is worth knowing about.

If you believe in Brit-Am.
If you think Brit-Am is worth something.
Help us function.
Help us get the message out.
With relatively little we can do very much
but barring continued miracle we need that "little" to come from you.
It is our impression that the
Almighty wants you to help us.